We're Number 2!

[Chef2]

This should be very interesting.

1 vote for Oklahoma State.

 

[LongTimeListener]

I can only assume Stanford is on there because the poll format requires three entries to code properly.

 

[Chef2]

I can only assume Stanford is on there because the poll format requires three entries to code properly.

Precisely.

 

[MileHigh]

Boise State?

 

[mb]

http://dennis-dodd.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/6270202/33660485

Palm says Okie State has to finish at least 19 points ahead of Alabama in each of the human polls to have a chance. Oklahoma State currently trails Alabama by 342 points in the Harris poll and 166 points in the coaches' poll. That essentially means the Cowboys are going to have to pass Stanford, which didn’t play, and Virginia Tech in the human polls.

"I'm not sure one team ahead of them [Oklahoma State] losing and one team putting up a big number [Clemson] is going to change the fact that everyone thought all along that LSU and Alabama were the two best teams," Palm said. "The voters would have to have an epiphany. That's basically what we're talking about."

 

[KYSportsWriter]

I'd like to see Okie State make it, but no way that happens.

 

[dooley_womack1]

I vote for Kodos, so don't blame me

 

[BrianGriffin]

It comes down to this:

What's your criteria? Who do you think is better or who do you think has done more to deserve it?

The answer to the two questions are likely 1. Alabama and 2. Oklahoma State (same record against a tougher schedule, no way around that fact).

I'm of the opinion that you can't really know who's better without them playing, so I lean toward the second question: Who's done more to deserve it? The answer: Oklahoma State.

And that's how I vote. Ask me a week ago and, as an SEC guy, I would have told you Alabama without hesitation. But if you really give it a look I think it's OSU.

 

[gravehunter]

I'd rather see Oklahoma State play against LSU but I think it will be Alabama vs. LSU.

 

[Versatile]

It comes down to this:

What's your criteria? Who do you think is better or who do you think has done more to deserve it?

The answer to the two questions are likely 1. Alabama and 2. Oklahoma State (same record against a tougher schedule, no way around that fact).

I'm of the opinion that you can't really know who's better without them playing, so I lean toward the second question: Who's done more to deserve it? The answer: Oklahoma State.

And that's how I vote. Ask me a week ago and, as an SEC guy, I would have told you Alabama without hesitation. But if you really give it a look I think it's OSU.

As I said in the other thread, the counterpoint is that LSU is a historically great team. The Tigers won all but one game by big margins against a very tough schedule featuring two other conference champions and the second- or third-best team in the country.

Alabama played only one close game, its loss. If you believe that loss came to a historically great team, then you believe Alabama has to be really, really good. The way Alabama and LSU have won their games makes me a believer in the Tide as the second-best team in the country. The fact that the SEC has won the past five national championships certainly doesn't hurt.

 

[Shaggy]

Oklahoma State has a better resume and that can't be argued.

Alabama's going to be No. 2 based on the reputation of the SEC and nothing else.

College football is a joke.

 

[Shaggy]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/74660790/The-Case-for-the-Cowboys

 

[Bulldog Smoltz]

I think Oklahoma State deserves the spot, but I think for better or worse, we're at a point where the SEC wins every debate because of its recent run of dominance. The No. 2 spot is going to go to Alabama and the Heisman is probably going to an SEC player, Richardson or the Honey Badger (love that nickname). Hell, Les Miles' pitch for the Honey Badger is that he is the best player on the best team in the SEC.

On a completely different note, Oklahoma State's loss did come days after a tragedy at the school. It seems that is overlooked by some. It shouldn't excuse the loss, but it was a factor that is being overlooked by some.

 

[Jake_Taylor]

BCS apologists/supporters have always said there was no need for a playoff because the regular season was the playoff. A rematch kind of blows that argument all to hell, doesn't it?

 

[LongTimeListener]

It's being overlooked because it wasn't a factor. Or at least it wasnt as they were building a three-touchdown lead.

It is really distasteful and embarrassing for OSU to keep bringing that up and I think they're going to regret using that to help their position in a football poll.

 

[Jake_Taylor]

It's being overlooked because it wasn't a factor. Or at least it wasnt as they were building a three-touchdown lead.

It is really distasteful and embarrassing for OSU to keep bringing that up and I think they're going to regret using that to help their position in a football poll.

You are probably right, but I'd say only the people that played and coached that game really know the effect it had on them.

 

[BrianGriffin]

It comes down to this:

What's your criteria? Who do you think is better or who do you think has done more to deserve it?

The answer to the two questions are likely 1. Alabama and 2. Oklahoma State (same record against a tougher schedule, no way around that fact).

I'm of the opinion that you can't really know who's better without them playing, so I lean toward the second question: Who's done more to deserve it? The answer: Oklahoma State.

And that's how I vote. Ask me a week ago and, as an SEC guy, I would have told you Alabama without hesitation. But if you really give it a look I think it's OSU.

As I said in the other thread, the counterpoint is that LSU is a historically great team. The Tigers won all but one game by big margins against a very tough schedule featuring two other conference champions and the second- or third-best team in the country.

Alabama played only one close game, its loss. If you believe that loss came to a historically great team, then you believe Alabama has to be really, really good. The way Alabama and LSU have won their games makes me a believer in the Tide as the second-best team in the country. The fact that the SEC has won the past five national championships certainly doesn't hurt.

You are overthinking it. You can just ask two questions to get to what I think should be the answer:
1. Who had a better record? Answer: They are the same at 11-1.
2. Who had a tougher schedule to get to 11-1? Answer: Oklahoma State's schedule is, by any reasonable measure, tougher.

You aren't just evaluating Iowa State in a vacuum or LSU in a vacuum. You are evaluating two 12-game schedules. And Oklahoma State's is, without question, better.

 

[Shaggy]

It comes down to this:

What's your criteria? Who do you think is better or who do you think has done more to deserve it?

The answer to the two questions are likely 1. Alabama and 2. Oklahoma State (same record against a tougher schedule, no way around that fact).

I'm of the opinion that you can't really know who's better without them playing, so I lean toward the second question: Who's done more to deserve it? The answer: Oklahoma State.

And that's how I vote. Ask me a week ago and, as an SEC guy, I would have told you Alabama without hesitation. But if you really give it a look I think it's OSU.

As I said in the other thread, the counterpoint is that LSU is a historically great team. The Tigers won all but one game by big margins against a very tough schedule featuring two other conference champions and the second- or third-best team in the country.

Alabama played only one close game, its loss. If you believe that loss came to a historically great team, then you believe Alabama has to be really, really good. The way Alabama and LSU have won their games makes me a believer in the Tide as the second-best team in the country. The fact that the SEC has won the past five national championships certainly doesn't hurt.

Not seeing why the past 5 seasons should have any impact whatsoever in the 2011 discussion.

Not seeing why LSU's history has any relevance to the 2011 discussion.

Put the 2011 resume side by side and LSU is the clear No. 1, Oklahoma State is the clear No. 2 and Alabama is the clear No. 3.

 

[Versatile]

It comes down to this:

What's your criteria? Who do you think is better or who do you think has done more to deserve it?

The answer to the two questions are likely 1. Alabama and 2. Oklahoma State (same record against a tougher schedule, no way around that fact).

I'm of the opinion that you can't really know who's better without them playing, so I lean toward the second question: Who's done more to deserve it? The answer: Oklahoma State.

And that's how I vote. Ask me a week ago and, as an SEC guy, I would have told you Alabama without hesitation. But if you really give it a look I think it's OSU.

As I said in the other thread, the counterpoint is that LSU is a historically great team. The Tigers won all but one game by big margins against a very tough schedule featuring two other conference champions and the second- or third-best team in the country.

Alabama played only one close game, its loss. If you believe that loss came to a historically great team, then you believe Alabama has to be really, really good. The way Alabama and LSU have won their games makes me a believer in the Tide as the second-best team in the country. The fact that the SEC has won the past five national championships certainly doesn't hurt.

Not seeing why the past 5 seasons should have any impact whatsoever in the 2011 discussion.

Not seeing why LSU's history has any relevance to the 2011 discussion.

Put the 2011 resume side by side and LSU is the clear No. 1, Oklahoma State is the clear No. 2 and Alabama is the clear No. 3.

I tacked on the last sentence after I made my argument. But you're right: It shouldn't be relevant.

Here are a few numbers that should be relevant:

Oklahoma State's average game score was 49.3-25.8.
Alabama's average game score was 36.0-8.8.

Oklahoma State recorded 322 first downs and allowed 302.
Alabama recorded 259 first downs and allowed 126.

Oklahoma State had 6,684 total yards and allowed 5,348.
Alabama had 5,201 total yards and allowed 2,295.

Oklahoma State scored 76 touchdowns and allowed 39.
Alabama scored 54 touchdowns and allowed 12.

Those numbers point to the clear observation that Alabama was a more dominant team overall than Oklahoma State. I recognize strength of schedule is a huge part of the formula, but I also think it's important to look at how the teams won those games. This goes right along with my belief that a team shouldn't be penalized heavily for losing to a better team. If you replaced LSU on Alabama's schedule with the New Orleans Saints, Alabama is still 11-1. And Alabama is still a better team than Oklahoma State.

It's a shame we can't prove this on the field. I'm all for a playoff. We don't have one. And I firmly believe there's more to a team than its schedule.

 

[BrianGriffin]

It comes down to this:

What's your criteria? Who do you think is better or who do you think has done more to deserve it?

The answer to the two questions are likely 1. Alabama and 2. Oklahoma State (same record against a tougher schedule, no way around that fact).

I'm of the opinion that you can't really know who's better without them playing, so I lean toward the second question: Who's done more to deserve it? The answer: Oklahoma State.

And that's how I vote. Ask me a week ago and, as an SEC guy, I would have told you Alabama without hesitation. But if you really give it a look I think it's OSU.

As I said in the other thread, the counterpoint is that LSU is a historically great team. The Tigers won all but one game by big margins against a very tough schedule featuring two other conference champions and the second- or third-best team in the country.

Alabama played only one close game, its loss. If you believe that loss came to a historically great team, then you believe Alabama has to be really, really good. The way Alabama and LSU have won their games makes me a believer in the Tide as the second-best team in the country. The fact that the SEC has won the past five national championships certainly doesn't hurt.

Not seeing why the past 5 seasons should have any impact whatsoever in the 2011 discussion.

Not seeing why LSU's history has any relevance to the 2011 discussion.

Put the 2011 resume side by side and LSU is the clear No. 1, Oklahoma State is the clear No. 2 and Alabama is the clear No. 3.

I tacked on the last sentence after I made my argument. But you're right: It shouldn't be relevant.

Here are a few numbers that should be relevant:

Oklahoma State's average game score was 49.3-25.8.
Alabama's average game score was 36.0-8.8.

Oklahoma State recorded 322 first downs and allowed 302.
Alabama recorded 259 first downs and allowed 126.

Oklahoma State had 6,684 total yards and allowed 5,348.
Alabama had 5,201 total yards and allowed 2,295.

Oklahoma State scored 76 touchdowns and allowed 39.
Alabama scored 54 touchdowns and allowed 12.

Those numbers point to the clear observation that Alabama was a more dominant team overall than Oklahoma State. I recognize strength of schedule is a huge part of the formula, but I also think it's important to look at how the teams won those games. This goes right along with my belief that a team shouldn't be penalized heavily for losing to a better team. If you replaced LSU on Alabama's schedule with the New Orleans Saints, Alabama is still 11-1. And Alabama is still a better team than Oklahoma State.

It's a shame we can't prove this on the field. I'm all for a playoff. We don't have one. And I firmly believe there's more to a team than its schedule.

You're overthinking again. If Alabama played LSU every week it would be last in the nation in offense. But it didn't. It played a considerably easier schedule statistically than OSU, so it predictably had more dominant stats.

I'm sure Boise State has some impressive stats too.

Again. Two stats: 11-1. Both teams achieved that. Strength of schedule: OSU is 8. Alabama is 23 (may change a bit this week, but not much).

So if one team is 11-1 against the 8th toughest schedule and the other team is 11-1 against the 23rd toughest schedule, didn't the team playing the tougher schedule have a better overall resume?